Sacchetta v. Grinnell et al

Filing 22

ORDER granting 15 Motion to Compel to the extent that within ten (10) days of this Order, Plaintiff shall produce to Defendants the amount of the settlement with Armor pursuant to an agreed upon confidentiality agreement. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens on 9/11/2020. (SA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
PIA D. SACCHETTA and PIA D.
SACCHETTA, as Surviving Parent of
James Thomas Anglin, II
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No: 5:19-cv-561-Oc-30PRL

PEYTON C. GRINNELL, JOSHUA
SEARCY, LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA
and ZACK MARABLE,
Defendants.

ORDER
In this action, Pia D. Sacchetta—in her capacity as both the surviving parent and personal
representative of the estate of her deceased son, James Thomas Anglin, II—alleges that Defendants
ignored her son’s plainly obvious emergency medical needs while in custody at Lake County
Detention Center, causing his death. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that her son had ingested a large
amount of methamphetamine before his arrest. Then, while in custody, he became critically ill and
required emergency medical treatment. She alleges that her son’s illness, condition, and need for
emergency medical care were both plainly obvious (he was vomiting, seizing, unable to speak, and
unable to get out of bed for hours) and directly reported (by his cellmates) to the two officers on
duty (Defendant Marable and Defendant Searcy). Plaintiff asserts that Defendants were
deliberately indifferent to that need by failing to report Mr. Anglin’s condition to medical staff and
failing to allow him to obtain medical care. As a result, Mr. Anglin died.
In Count I, Plaintiff seeks damages against Defendants Marable and Searcy under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 for the alleged deliberate indifference to Mr. Anglin’s serious medical needs in

violation of his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. In Count II, Plaintiff alleges
a state law claim for wrongful death against all Defendants pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 768.28.
Prior to filing this action, Plaintiff (as personal representative of Mr. Anglin’s estate)
initiated medical malpractice claims against Armor Correctional Health Services (hereinafter
“Armor”) and two of their employed nurses. At the time of her son’s death, Armor provided
medical services at the Detention Center pursuant to a contract with the Sheriff. During the
statutory pre-suit period, Plaintiff and Armor reached a settlement of the medical malpractice
claims and executed a confidential settlement agreement.
Now, in this case, Defendants seek production of the confidential settlement agreement.
Plaintiff has objected to its production on the grounds that it is confidential, privileged, and outside
of the scope of discovery.1 Defendants thus move to compel its production.
A party is entitled to “discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any
party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
“Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be
discoverable.” Id. A party may move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 37. The Court has broad discretion in managing pretrial discovery matters and in deciding to
compel. Josendis v. Wall to Wall Residence Repairs, Inc., 662 F.3d 1292, 1306 (11th Cir. 2011);
Perez v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 297 F.3d 1255, 1263 (11th Cir. 2002).
However, in reviewing the parties’ papers, there is no real dispute that Defendants are
entitled to disclosure of the settlement amount. Plaintiff concedes that the amount of settlement

1

According to Ms. Sacchetta’s counsel, Armor has also objected to producing the confidential
settlement agreement by way of objection to a non-party subpoena. (Doc. 17 at 4). Ms. Sacchetta’s
counsel reports that Armor’s attorney contacted him and conveyed his objection, noting that Armor
objects to the disclosure of the confidential settlement agreement, and that absent a Court Order, counsel
would take the position that its disclosure violates confidentiality.
-2-

“may be relevant in terms of set-off,” and asks the Court to consider less intrusive means of
disclosing the settlement amount without requiring production of the confidential settlement
agreement. (See Doc. 17 at 9). And, Defendants’ relevancy arguments focus solely on “the amount
of the settlement”—not on the entire agreement. (See Doc. 15 at 6-7).
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion (Doc. 15) is GRANTED to the extent that within ten
(10) days of this Order, Plaintiff shall produce to Defendants the amount of the settlement with
Armor pursuant to an agreed upon confidentiality agreement.
DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on September 11, 2020.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties

-3-